In today’s Charlotte Observer Duke Power CEO Paul Anderson argues that global warming is a reality-which no one disputes-and, in response he supports a tax on carbon based fuels such as coal and oil. Anderson notes ?few scientists disagree that a climate change phenomenon exists. [Has there ever been a time in global history that this was not true?] Further, there is general agreement that climate change is likely being influenced by human activity — particularly through the burning of fossil fuels.? This is also true, at least to a point. There are other human activities that many argue may be influencing the climate such as urban and suburbanization. In other words, the ?heat island effect? where the expansion of pavement and buildings, etc. into previously rural areas, such as around airports where most ?for-the-record? temperatures are taken, tends to heat things up. Also, notice the mild language-?influenced by human activity.? Of course, all the debate surrounds exactly this point-what is the influence? How much is the influence? How much of the warming of the last 100 years can be explained by that influence? Of course, these are the questions that need to be answered before the government starts restricting our freedoms and lightening our wallets.
It is also interesting to note that Anderson makes no mention of scientific agreement on whether or not such a carbon tax would do anything to reduce future warming. This is because the agreement on this point actually goes against such a tax. As I discussed in a recent Spotlight, undisputed research by a scientist named Thomas Wigley estimates that if the Kyoto Protocol were implemented with 100 percent compliance there would be an undetectable difference in global temperatures in the year 2100. In a recent email that I received from Douglas Crawford-Brown, well-known global warming pessimist at UNC, he states ?Wigley is correct?Even if we stopped ALL carbon dioxide emissions now, it would be at least a hundred years before there was any downward movement in atmospheric carbon because so much carbon is stored in the system now.? So even a measure so extreme that it would probably put us back in the stone age would not make a difference.
By the way, here are some facts that might explain why the Duke CEO is so high on carbon taxes. According to this press release:
1. Duke wants to generate more of electricity using nuclear poser-i.e., build more nuclear power plants. Nuclear power emits no carbon and would go untaxed.
2. Duke Energy operates more than 17,500 miles of natural gas transmission pipeline with 250 billion cubic feet of natural gas storage capacity and, through its joint venture with ConocoPhillips, is the largest producer of natural gas liquids (NGLs) in North America.
Comment-Natural gas stands to benefit extensively from a carbon tax. This is why Enron was a big supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. According to the US Energy information Agaency, the price of natural gas will go up by 142 percent under Kyoto. This would be the result of people switching from high carbon oil and coal to the low CO2 emitting natural gas-talk about windfall profits.
